The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the IRS action in 1983. The 8-1 ruling likely would be the legal precedent for the Trump administration if it revokes Harvard’s tax-exempt status over allegations it practiced discrimination through diversity equity and inclusion initiatives and a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment by Gaza war protesters.

“In 1983, the Supreme Court established the precedent that universities which practice racial discrimination can be stripped of their nonprofit status,” conservative activist Christopher Rufo wrote on X Tuesday. “Harvard’s DEI programs are openly discriminatory and, therefore, the president has every right to proceed with this remedy.”

Richard Schmalbeck, an emeritus law professor at Duke University who has written about the Bob Jones case, said it could be a relevant precedent if Trump gets the IRS to take up his directive.

“If the Harvard situation did involve harassment and the university knew about it and did not appropriately protect Jewish students, there could be a case that could be made,” said Schmalbeck.

Trump took aim at Harvard’s tax exemption this week after the university refused to comply with demands for policy changes and federal oversight.

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?”, ” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

The Trump administration reportedly was moving ahead with the threat and pushing the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status. Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said in a statement that there was no legal basis for the action.

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission. The tax exemption means that more of every dollar can go toward scholarships for students, lifesaving and life-enhancing medical research, and technological advancements that drive economic growth,” he said. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”

Universities and other organizations, including charities and religious groups, can receive a tax exemption if they operate for the public benefit. With the exemption, contributions to them are not subject to federal income tax. In addition to luring contributions to Harvard, the exemption means investment income from the university’s more than $50 billion endowment is not federally taxed.

It’s legally questionable whether Trump could order the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. And if the IRS were to act, Harvard would have the right for judicial review. That’s where the Bob Jones case would come into play.

“Obviously it’s not the same kind of discrimination and I think discrimination is wrong against anyone,” said Mark Goldfeder, director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, a non-profit that fights antisemitism. “Just like you can’t discriminate against Black people as they did in Bob Jones, you can’t discriminate against Jewish people as they’re doing here. And I think it’s clearly a direct comparison.”

The Bob Jones case began in 1970s when the IRS changed its policy following a court injunction and stopped granting tax exempt status to schools that engaged in racial discrimination. At the time, Bob Jones did not allow Black students, asserting the Bible does not allow interracial dating or marriage.

Bob Jones changed its policy in 1971 and began accepting applications from Black students “married within their race,” according to the 1983 Supreme Court decision. After a 1975 appellate court ruling that prohibited “racial exclusion from private schools,” Bob Jones revised its policy again and permitted unmarried Black students to enroll.

But the school put in place an official rule that prohibited interracial dating and marriage. Anyone found in violation or advocating interracial dating or marriage would be expelled. The IRS officially revoked Bob Jones University’s tax exemption in 1976. The university sued and the Supreme Court upheld the IRS action.

“Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools’ policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote. He said such policies “cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit.”

Schmalbeck said the Harvard case might be more complicated because Bob Jones had an official policy of racial discrimination.

“It was an easier case for the IRS to bring in Bob Jones because they basically conceded the relevant facts and so it was a pure question of law as to whether that kind of policy amounted to a violation of public policy,” he said. “In the Harvard case, there would be a factual dispute. But once a factual dispute is resolved, then it becomes the legal question about what sorts of behavior by the university would violate public policy.”

Goldfeder disagreed, saying he thought the Harvard case was clear cut because it involves not just a violation of longstanding public policy against discrimination.

In 2004, the Education Department extended so-called Title VI protections to Jewish people and those from other religious groups who Jews, Muslims and other religious groups that “face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic characteristics.” And in 2019, Trump signed an executive order combatting “anti-semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.”

“So it’s not only contrary to public policy, discrimination in the way that Harvard is allowing, it is also unlawful,” Goldfeder said.

Representative Richard Neal, a Springfield Democrat with deep expertise on tax matters, said Trump would be abusing his power by moving to strip Harvard’s tax exemption.

“I’m pleased that Harvard’s challenging the administration,” he said. “I’m not pleased with the idea that the President would ask the Internal Revenue Service to politicize a finding of non-conformance…of tax exempt status. This is unheard of.”

Bob Jones University continued on for decades without the tax exemption, finding ways to mitigate it by, for example, spinning off its museum as a separate organization that was eligible for an exemption. In 2000, the university finally ended its ban on interracial dating after new light was shed on it following a controversial campaign stop there by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.

In 2008, the university publicly apologized for its racist policies and in 2017 it regained its federal tax-exempt status. Goldfeder said he would like to see Harvard move much more quickly to change than Bob Jones University.

“In 2017, they got their tax exempt status back because it turns out that, at the end of the day, people can learn and do better,” he said. “And I’m hoping that it doesn’t take Harvard that many years to do better.”

Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @JimPuzzanghera.